List of ethnic slurs
negative words to a certain ethical race
The following is a list of ethnic slurs, ethnophaulisms, or ethnic epithets that are, or have been, used as insinuations or allegations about members of a given ethnic, national, or racial group or to refer to them in a derogatory, pejorative, or otherwise insulting manner.
Some of the terms listed below can be used in casual speech without any intention of causing offense, while others may be much more offensive. The connotation of a term and prevalence of its use as a pejorative or neutral descriptor varies over time and by geography.
For the purposes of this list, an ethnic slur is a term designed to insult others on the basis of race, ethnicity, or nationality. Each term is listed followed by its country or region of usage, a definition, and a reference to that term.
Ethnic slurs may also be produced as a racial epithet by combining a general-purpose insult with the name of ethnicity. Common insulting modifiers include "dog", "pig", "dirty" and "filthy"; such terms are not included in this list.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
Notes
See also
References
Bibliography
Further reading
Adhikari, Mohamed, editor. Burdened by Race: Coloured Identities in Southern Africa. UCT Press, 2013, pp.
“List of ethnic slurs” enters the record as negative words to a certain ethical race. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what List, ethnic and slurs can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“List of ethnic slurs” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, List, ethnic and slurs provides the most credible route into that argument.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 21, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q25197302. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2013.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “List of ethnic slurs”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow List of ethnic slurs primary sources, List of ethnic slurs archive and List research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “List of ethnic slurs”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “List of ethnic slurs” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.